BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |Hearing Date:July 2, 2012 |Bill No:AB | | |1939 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair Bill No: AB 1939Author:Pan As Amended: June 19, 2012Fiscal Yes SUBJECT: Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses. SUMMARY: Creates a pilot project in specified counties which would require pet dealers, and others as specified, to submit a report once a month to the city or county responsible for licensing dogs with information regarding dog sales and adoptions; sunsets the pilot project provisions as of January 1, 2018; and, allows licensing agencies to issue puppy licenses, as defined. Existing law: 1)Authorizes cities and counties to issue dog licenses and to comply with and specify other requirements regarding the regulation and licensing of dogs within their territorial limits. (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC), Division 14. Regulation and Licensing of Dogs §§ 30501 - 31683). 2)Provides that any dog license tag which is issued by any city and county or city constitutes compliance with all of the provisions regarding the regulation and licensing of dogs if it is issued pursuant to an ordinance which does all of the following: (FAC § 30502) a) Substantially complies with all provisions regarding the regulation and licensing of dogs. b) Provides for the wearing of the license tag upon the collar of the dog. c) Provides for the keeping of a record which shall establish the AB 1939 Page 2 identity of the person that owns or harbors the dog. 3)Declares it unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or keep any dog over the age of four months, or to permit such a dog which is owned, harbored, or controlled by him to run at large, unless the dog has attached to its neck or leg a substantial collar as specified. (FAC § 30951) 4)Requires that in a designated rabies areas every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of four months, shall no less than once every two years secure a license for the dog as provided by ordinance of the responsible city, city and county, or county. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 121690) 5)Prohibits a public animal control agency, animal or humane shelter, or a rescue group, as defined, from selling or giving away to a new owner any dog that has not been spayed or neutered, except as specified. (FAC § 30503) 6)Provides that whenever a dog license is issued, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered, the tag shall be issued for one-half or less of the fee required for a dog. (FAC § 30525, § 30804.5; Government Code (GC) § 38792) 7)Authorizes a board of supervisors to provide for the issuance of serially numbered metallic dog licenses Ýdog license tag]. (FAC § 30801) 8)Authorizes the board of supervisors or animal control department to authorize veterinarians to issue the licenses to owners of dogs who apply for one. (FAC § 30801) 9)Specifies that licenses shall not exceed a period of two years, unless the person to whom the license is to be issued possesses a dog that has attained the age of 12 months or older, and that has been vaccinated against rabies, chooses a license period as established by the board of supervisors of up to one, two, or three years. (FAC § 30801; GC § 38792) 10)Provides that the fee for issuance of the dog license tag is fifty cents ($0.50). The board of supervisors may, however, increase the fee. (FAC § 30804) 11)Authorizes the legislative body of a city to impose and collect a license fee for a period not to exceed two years and not exceeding AB 1939 Page 3 the cost of services relating to dogs. (GC § 38792) 12)Defines "dog breeder" or "breeder" as a person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association that has sold, transferred, or given away all or part of three or more litters of 20 or more dogs during the preceding 12 months that were bred and reared on the premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association. (HSC § 122045) 13)Defines "pet dealer" as a person engaging in the business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, and by virtue of the sales of dogs and cats is required to possess a permit pursuant to § 6019 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. This definition does not apply to breeders of dogs, nor to any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association, that breeds or rears dogs on the premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association, that has sold, transferred, or given away fewer than 50 dogs in the preceding year. (HSC § 122125 et seq., or the "Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act") 14)Defines "purchaser" as a person who purchases a dog or cat from a pet dealer without the intent to resell the animal. (Id.) 15)Provides that whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service unless legislation defines a new crime or changing an existing definition of a crime. (California Constitution, Article XIIIB § 6) 16)Provides that the Commission on State Mandates shall not find costs mandated by the state in any claim submitted by a local agency or school district if the commission finds that the statute created a new crime or infraction, eliminated a crime or infraction, or changed the penalty for a crime or infraction, but only for that portion of the statute relating directly to the enforcement of the crime or infraction. (GC § 17556) This bill: 1)States the intent of the Legislature to encourage anyone transferring ownership of a dog to advise the new owner that all dogs four months of age or older must be licensed under state law and for all veterinarians to advise their clients to license all of the clients' dogs that are four months of age or older. AB 1939 Page 4 2)Provides that the following requirements for reporting of specified information regarding the sale or adoption of a dog shall apply to the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara, including all local jurisdictions within those counties: a) Requires a pet dealer, humane society, rescue group, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or pet dealer, as defined, to submit once a month, 30 days after the close of business for the previous month, a report to the local governmental entity that is responsible for licensing dogs in the city or county. b) Requires that the report include the name, address, and telephone number of the person who receives the dog, and include descriptions about the dog, and requires that the report not be used, distributed, or released for any purpose, unless as specified. c) Requires the reporting entity to retain copies of the report for 12 months, and specifies that a report is not required in any month that a dog was not adopted or sold. d) Prohibits the information in the report from being used, distributed or released for any purpose except as specified and to ensure compliance with existing state and local law, including applicable licensing requirements and regulations. e) Provides that a violation of the reporting requirements is punishable by a civil fine, as determined by the local jurisdiction, and shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50) for the first offense and one hundred dollars ($100) for each subsequent offense. f) Provides that a rescue group that places fewer than 20 dogs in a calendar year shall be excluded from the reporting requirements. g) Allows a local governmental entity to provide notice to a person who receives a dog that was adopted or sold regarding the laws requiring the person to obtain a license for the dog. h) Allows a local governmental entity to notify a different local governmental entity that is responsible for licensing dogs in the jurisdiction in which the person resides, that the person has AB 1939 Page 5 adopted or purchased a dog, if that person does not reside within the jurisdiction of the local governmental entity that is providing the notice. i) Defines a "rescue group" as a for-profit or not-for-profit entity, or a collaboration of individuals with at least one of its purposes being the sale or placement of dogs that have been removed from a public animal control agency or shelter or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane shelter, or that have been previously owned by any person other than the original breeder of that dog. 3)Allows any other county to enact a local ordinance implementing a program consistent with the requirements as specified in Item # 2), above. 4)Sunsets the reporting requirement provisions of Item # 2), above, as of January 1, 2018. 5)Provides that if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered, then the dog license tag shall be issued one-half or less of the fee required for a dog. 6)Defines "puppy" to mean any dog under the age of 12 months of age. 7)Authorizes a licensing entity to issue a "puppy license" for a puppy that is six months of age or less Ý0 to 6 months], and that the following shall apply: a) A puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches one year of age; b) A puppy license may be issued with or without an anti-rabies vaccination; 8)Provides that a puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches five months of age if the owner has not provided acceptable proof, on or before that date, to the entity that issued the license that the puppy has received an anti-rabies vaccination, and specifies the following: a) If the puppy license expires because of lack of acceptable proof, that the owner is not eligible to obtain a second puppy license; or, AB 1939 Page 6 b) If the owner has provided the issuing agency with satisfactory evidence of the anti-rabies vaccination, the puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches one year of age. 9)Provides, upon expiration of a puppy license Ý12 months], the owner of the puppy shall obtain a dog license tag for a dog that has been spayed or neutered and the fee shall be the same as is contained in existing law, which provides for a fee of fifty cents ($0.50) unless the fee is increased by the board of supervisors; a) Provides, upon expiration of a puppy license, if the puppy has not been spayed or neutered, the owner of the puppy shall obtain a dog license tag subject to the regular fee for a dog that has not been spayed or neutered; b) Provides that the fee for a puppy license is the same fee permitted for a dog that has been spayed or neutered which as specified in Item # 9), above. 10)Provides for the responsible city, county, or city and county to specify the means by which the dog owner is required to provide proof that his/her dog has been spayed or neutered, including, but not limited to, electronic transmission or facsimile. 11)Declares that no reimbursement is required because the act creates a new crime or infraction to local agencies or school districts under Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution and GOV § 17556. FISCAL EFFECT: According to Assembly Committee on Appropriations analysis dated May 9, 2012, the fiscal impact is negligible. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose. The Concerned Dog Owners of California and the Humane Society of the United States are the Co-Sponsors of this measure. According to the Co-Sponsors, since the mid-1950s, California has required that dogs be licensed by the time they are four months of age and owners are obligated to provide proof of anti-rabies vaccination and they require that the licenses be issued by the local cities and counties. As important as dog licensing is to California's local governments and humane agencies - as a way to recover costs associated with handling stray dogs, as a means for identifying dogs to owners quickly, and as assurance for public health related to rabies prevention - statewide dog licensing rates AB 1939 Page 7 are a dismal 20 percent. The Co-Sponsors maintain that when the vast majority of dogs are not licensed, our communities deal with the consequences of hundreds of thousands of lost dogs every year. "Those consequences are both fiscal and moral. Taxpayers spend a collective $250 million per year for local animal services agencies - and that doesn't account for the tens of millions of philanthropic support to run local SPCAs, humane societies and non-profit animal rescue groups. And when lost dogs don't get back to their owners, many of them don't leave animal shelters alive. Both of these outcomes are tragic and oftentimes avoidable." The Co-Sponsors state that the purpose of this bill is to remove some of the barriers that reduce compliance with the state laws that requires dog licensing (which is to be done at the local level). Removing these barriers and increasing licensing would: a) Get lost dogs home to their owners which results in lower kill rates in the shelters; b) Provide local government with access to additional revenues; c) Provide local governments with ways to recover costs more quickly. The Co-Sponsors indicate that this bill would require pet stores, non-profit animal shelters and rescue organizations, and high-volume dog breeders in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara to provide to their local licensing agency a monthly list of licensing information regarding dogs they have placed. The local licensing agency may use the data to follow up with new dog owners to complete the licensing process. This reporting program in the five counties shall remain in effect until January 1st, 2018. Any other County may enact a local ordinance implementing a similar reporting program. Co-Sponsors additionally explain that this bill would permit cities and counties to offer a puppy license to puppies under the age of four months. For cities and counties that choose to offer a puppy license, they shall offer it for the same fee charged to owners of altered dogs. A puppy license would be temporary and become permanent when the owners provide their local licensing agency with proof of proper rabies documentation (no later than five months of age). Co-Sponsors argue that as state and local general revenues have declined, local animal care and regulation agencies have seen a AB 1939 Page 8 significant loss of funding - with many agencies losing fifty percent or more of their revenue and associated staff. The same economic conditions which have resulted in reduced revenues have also increased the demand for public services, resulting in higher intakes. These agencies - if they are to meet the public's demand to produce better outcomes (more animals leaving alive) - must find ways to improve other revenue sources to recover their costs. The Co-Sponsors believe that by requiring dog seller and adoption agencies to provide contact information of new dog owners to licensing authorities, information that these entities already possess can be utilized readily to follow up on licensing compliance and improve the revenue picture. "While in theory it would be easier to simply require dog licensing at the time of purchase/adoption, the fact that California has more than 400 licensing jurisdictions - each with different fee schedules and forms - renders this option untenable. While not required by AB 1939 to make use of this information, we anticipate that local jurisdictions will not only be anxious to utilize it, but that they will work together to identify ways to share the information they receive with one another so that information about dogs purchased/adopted in one jurisdiction ends up in the possession of the agency with the authority to follow up on compliance. The Co-Sponsors further believe that this information will yield far greater returns to local jurisdictions if puppies can be identified and licensed closer to the time they are sold. "As it stands, licenses can only be issued upon proof of rabies vaccination - an immunization that cannot be given until the dog reaches four months of age. However, most puppies are sold between two and three months of age. It's at the time of purchase/adoption that most pet owners are likely to take care of basics like identification and licensing and so it makes sense to offer cities and counties a pathway to this by amending the state law in a way that clarifies the process for puppy licensing should they elect to offer it. Several jurisdictions already offer puppy licensing even though they're violating state law to do so - and they are reaping the rewards of higher identification rates and longer-term revenue associated with annual licensing renewal of those dogs. (For example, the Co-Sponsors point out that reports similar to the monthly licensing reports required in this measure have generated over $500,000 annually for the City of San Jose.) 2.Background. California state law requires that all dogs over the age of four months be vaccinated against rabies and possess a license. Licensing is a means of identification in the event that a AB 1939 Page 9 dog becomes lost. Licensing revenues aid licensing entities in promoting and protecting human and animal safety. Failure to license one's dog may result in fines, penalties and/or citations. According to data from the American Veterinary Medical Association, California itself has approximately 9.3 million dogs. Approximately 715,000 dogs die each year in California. In 2008, about 1,900,000 dogs were licensed with the possibility of under-reporting. According to information provided by the Sponsors, 80% of dogs in shelters have an owner, but only 16-20% are returned to their owners because of licensing. Low rates of licensing compliance also results in lower revenue for local governments. According to the American Humane Association Web site, it is generally safe to spay or neuter most puppies at 8 weeks of age. Once a dog is spayed or neutered, it may qualify for the fee discount pursuant to FAC §§ 30525, 30804.5 and GC § 38792 of one-half, or less of the fee required for a dog. This bill does not require vaccination as a pre-requisite to licensing; however, owners must still vaccinate the puppy when it reaches 4 months of age. If the owner has not provided acceptable proof when the puppy reaches five months of age that the puppy has received an anti-rabies vaccination, the puppy license shall expire until the issuing agency receives satisfactory evidence indicating the puppy has received vaccination. After one year, puppies are considered adults. This bill provides that the puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches one year of age and upon expiration of this license, the owner must obtain a regular dog license. 3.Current Declines in Dog Licensing and Licensing Compliance. According to the California Department of Public Health, the past three decades have seen a sharp decline in the number of California dogs licensed per 1000 people. In 1996-97 Los Angeles Animal Services saw 137,000 animals licensed which shrank to 125,000 in 2006-2007. Additional information reveals that in 2009, only 16% of California's dogs were licensed. Supporters contend that by permitting licensing and education when a dog is still a puppy, licensing compliance will go up. The Los Angeles Animal Services had a different method of improving compliance by implementing their License Canvassing program, which utilized employees in a canvassing effort, following up on breeding AB 1939 Page 10 permits. They saw positive results in increasing compliance, bringing in 6,500 licenses and $282,000 in revenue. 4. Current Reporting Requirements for Pet Dealers. Much of the existing reporting for pet dealers requirements are established in the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (Act). Apart from setting forth definitions for pet dealers and purchasers, the Act sets forth guidelines for the health and safety of dogs and cats. The Act also sets forth information pet dealers shall provide to purchasers, including information on disease, illness, and any congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog at the time of sale. It also provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation of the Act. Pet dealers are also required to provide a basic standard of living for dogs and sets forth provisions addressing dog illness after purchase regarding refunds and veterinary costs. Pet dealers are also required to provide the purchaser at the time of sale, a written notice of rights upon request setting forth rights provided for in the Act. 5. Measure May Decrease Euthanasia for Shelter Dogs. A key concern of some animal groups is the number of dogs that are euthanized when they are not reclaimed by owners, transferred, adopted, or die of natural causes in shelters. They believe that euthanasia of dogs would decrease if more owners are reunited with dogs in shelters through increased licensing efforts. According to information from the California Department of Public Health, 35% of shelter dogs are euthanized, 16% are reclaimed by owners and 27% are adopted. Increasing licensing tools for local governmental entities may improve the percentage of dogs reclaimed by owners from shelters. According to the California Department of Public Health, if there is a 10% increase in the rate at which lost dogs are returned to owners, the chance that they are euthanized goes down by roughly 5-20%. 6. Related Legislation. AB 1121 (Pan) of 2011, is a bill which was similar to this measure and passed out of this Committee by a vote of 6 to 1. It was however vetoed by the Governor with the following veto message: "I am returning Assembly Bill 1121 without my signature. Nothing in existing law prevents local governments from issuing puppy licenses or imposing requirements on dog sellers. In fact, some cities and counties have already adopted excellent programs of the kind AB 1939 Page 11 envisioned by this bill. Licensing and tracking of dogs is quintessentially a local function." AB 258 (Hagman) of 2011, exempts from the rabies vaccination requirement a dog that a licensed veterinarian determines, on an annual basis, would be endangered from the vaccine due to disease or other conditions. This bill is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee. SCR 51 (Lieu) of 2011, declares July 7, 2011 to be Microchip Your Animal Day 2011 in California and would request that Californians observe this day by having their dogs and cats microchipped and by supporting organizations that provide no-cost and affordable microchipping services. This resolution is pending before the Senate Rules Committee. SB 702 (Lieu) of 2011, prohibits any public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group from releasing to an owner seeking to reclaim his or her dog or cat, or selling or giving away to a new owner, a dog or cat that has not been microchipped, except under a specified circumstance. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill is pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 2716 (Mendoza) of 2010, provided for a reduced fee for a dog license tag if a certificate was presented from a licensed veterinarian stating that the dog is a puppy under the age of 8 months. By expanding the population of dogs eligible for a reduced license fee, the bill would have imposed a state-mandated local program on a local government which would administer the expanded program. This measure was referred to the Assembly Committee on Local Government but was never heard. SB 250 (Florez) of 2010, restricted the ownership of unsterilized dogs and cats and required surgical sterilization of the animal in specified circumstances. This bill died on the Assembly Floor. AB 1634 (Levine) of 2008, enacted the California Responsible Pet Ownership Act which specifies that a person who owns a dog or cat that is not licensed (or is improperly licensed) and that has not been spayed or neutered may be cited, and if cited, must pay civil penalties. It also increased existing fines for nonspayed or unneutered dogs and cats. This bill required microchipping of the animal for a second occurrence for which the owner would have to pay AB 1939 Page 12 the cost of the microchip procedure, as specified. This bill died on the Senate Floor. SB 861 (Speier, Chapter 668, Statutes of 2005) allows cities and counties to pass specified breed-specific legislation for mandatory spaying and neutering and breeding restrictions. This bill provides for increased reporting to the State Public Health Veterinarian of dog bite data and other information by local jurisdictions that makes use of the authorization provided by the bill. SB 934 (Vincent) of 2005, provided that the entity selling or giving away of an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat shall require the adopter or purchaser to execute a written agreement acknowledging that the dog or cat is not spayed or neutered and agreeing that the adopter or purchaser shall be responsible for ensuring that the dog or cat will be spayed or neutered, as specified. The bill would have subject a purchaser or adopter who violates the agreement to spay or neuter to specified civil fines and penalties. Because the bill increased the duties of local humane officers, this bill would have imposed a state-mandated local program upon local governments. This measure was referred to the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee but was never heard. SB 1301 (Vincent, Chapter 253, Statutes of 2004) repeals the sunset date of January 1, 2006, for statutory provisions effective January 1, 2000, relating to the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats. SB 1785 (Hayden, Chapter 752, Statutes of 1998) provides that public and private animal shelters are subject to the same anti-cruelty statues as private citizens who take possession of a stray dog or cat and requires animal shelters to keep animals for a minimum of three business days before they are put up for adoption and a minimum of six business days before they are euthanized among other provisions. 7.Arguments in Support. The Animal Control Directors Association (ACDA) is in support of this bill and points out that dog licensing is a system that was developed to monitor rabies compliance, beginning when a dog reaches the age of 4 months and can be vaccinated against rabies. There are no provisions within the existing law that clearly allow licensing authorities to provide discounts or incentives for puppies. The ADCA believes that this measure would provide local jurisdictions an extra option for puppy licensing and the opportunity to increase license revenues by allowing a discounted fee in the first year. The ACDA also believe that the monthly reporting of information by animal rescue groups, AB 1939 Page 13 local Humane Societies, pet stores and pet dealers of all dogs they sell or adopt and the new owner information can be used by the licensing authority to ensure compliance with existing licensing and rabies laws. "This information will enable local agencies to dramatically increase licensing revenues which help to offset the cost to provide required animal control services." The County of Sacramento and the City of San Jose are in support and believe that this measure will give the County and City needed opportunities to provide animal care services to the public more efficiently and to offset the cost of providing the services with license fees. It will provide the County and City with more options to ensure the dogs are licensed and that the licenses are renewed, and would provide information about dogs sold or adopted on a more regular bases so that the County and City will be able to provide new dog owners with information about how to comply with existing licensing and rabies requirements. "Another benefit is that this information would enable local governments to contact owners if their dog ends up in a shelter to facilitate reuniting the dog with its owner more quickly than we are able to do now. 8.Arguments in Opposition. The City of Los Angeles (City) is opposes this measure based on an action of the City Council. The three primary reasons for the City Council's action are: (1) The bill effectively allows the dismantling of state-authorized "differential dog licensing" programs in the five most populous counties in California. Differential licensing provides a powerful incentive for spaying or neutering dogs by authorizing local jurisdictions to charge at least twice as much for an intact dog license as it does for sterilized dog licenses. This program has been very successful in Los Angeles and substituting a one-size fits all approach for dogs prior to their first birthday essentially incentives breeding that could further contribute to pet overpopulation in the state's urbanized areas. (2) The bill recommends implementation of a "puppy license" to replace differential licensing, an act which promises to reduce revenues to local jurisdictions at the same time it could increase costs by facilitating the birth of more unwanted pets. (3) The imposes an information reporting requirement on nonprofit rescue and adoption organizations statewide that is likely to prove burdensome and which is accompanies by fines for violations. This combination could service to drive some AB 1939 Page 14 of the state's most passionate pet adoption advocates out of the field at a time when they're vitally needed to help underfunded animal control agencies save the lives of more animals. The City believes that the mechanisms that this measure employs will, on balance, be detrimental to California's efforts to combat irresponsible pet ownership and high levels of pet euthanasia in public animal shelters. The City of Long Beach (City) is also opposed and believes the bill will create conflicting reporting requirements for animal transfers within the City, in addition to a new layer of temporary licensing options. "The City believes the proposed regulations (sic) would complicate existing local laws that currently address animal licensing in a consistent and coordinated manner." The City is concerned that the reporting requirements excludes what it calls "backyard breeders" and is unnecessary in the City, as its municipal code provides for a more comprehensive reporting requirements. (The City requires that every person who owns, operates or maintains a location where dogs . . . or other domestic pets are legally sold by of kept for sale, to report specified information on forms provided by the City, and that the report is submitted no late than 10 days from the date of transfer.) The City indicates that it boasts a dog licensing rate above the State average. Over 35 percent of dogs in Long Beach are licensed, and the City continually engages in educational opportunities to encourage additional licensing. Online licensing and increased locations at low cost clinics that rotate to various parts of the City have been effective tools for the City, "and would become complicated by pilot program regulations in AB 1939." The State Humane Association of California (SHAC) is opposed to the requirements of this measure, and in particular the requirement that humane societies and SPCAs submit a monthly report to animal control containing the name, address, and telephone number of every person who adopts a dog. "For humane societies and SPCAs, their adopter lists are trade secret, conferring independent economic value on the organizations. If SPCAs and humane societies are forced to surrender adopter lists to local government, they face the risk that the information will be misappropriated. We are aware of one SPCA that recently provided its adopter list to its local animal control agency to help facilitate an increase in licensing revenue. Unfortunately, this gesture of goodwill turned into an opportunity for the animal control agency to solicit donations on its own behalf. "Although the bill does contain language that restricts the AB 1939 Page 15 use, distribution, and release of the list to ensure compliance with state and local laws, including applicable licensing requirements and regulations, SHAC does not believe it provides adequate safeguards for the protection of this valuable information. Moreover, absent from this bill is a penalty for unauthorized use of the adopter information. SHAC is also opposed to the fine for failure to report. The reporting requirement amounts to a mandate for SPCAs and humane societies for which they would receive no reimbursement from local government. However, if they fail to report, they would be subject to a fine. Although SHAC generally supports the concept of AB 1939 and understands that adopter information may be instrumental in generating additional licensing revenue, SHAC believes that reporting for humane societies and SPCAs should be voluntary because of its concerns about the use of the information and the fine. Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL) is opposed and joins with the State Humane Association, SPCA LA, and other SPCA's and rescue groups throughout the state in opposition to this bill. Although SCIL agrees with the intention of increasing the number of licensed dogs in the state of California, they believe this bill will only negatively affect the licensing by lowering the fees coming into local jurisdictions and promoting more unaltered pets. "While California is euthanizing over a half million pets in our shelters each year and spending almost $300 million on animal control, this is the wrong direction." SCIL indicates that it opposes this bill for the following reasons: (1) Similar to comments of the Governor, SCIL believes that every jurisdiction may want to handle their fee structure differently so this should be left up to the local jurisdiction to decide how to incentivize dog licensing in their local communities. For example, Orange County already has a "puppy license" which provides for a discount on a license fee until the dog is 6 months of age. Also, the City of Los Angeles already has a four-month "puppy certificate," and it's free. (2) SCIL is concerned that giving a dog a year for the discounted license is TOO long. A dog can have up to two litters in one year, which conflicts with the intent of existing law. Existing law is meant to encourage dog owners to spay and neuter their dogs as soon as they reach 4 months of age. SCIL is worried that this is the first step toward breaking down this very successful differential licensing law on the books and there are other alternatives for local governments to incentivize pet owners to license their animals. AB 1939 Page 16 (3) SCIL agrees with the reporting requirements in concept, however, in this distressed economy it appears to put an undue burden on small businesses as well as local rescue groups and ASPCAs. Even worse, as argued by SCIL, this bill does not seem to include the "hobby breeder," which coincidentally are more common in California than rescue shelters. "Not only does this make the code discriminatory, AB 1939 might very well result in LESS animals being adopted in shelters and more through unregulated hobby breeders!" Furthermore, as SCIL argues, existing law is supportive of reducing the number of unwanted animals through spay and neuter programs. "The only appeal of a puppy license, which this bill proposes, is to a pet owner who is considering breeding an animal." 9.Policy Issue : Would Receiving Information on Dogs Sold and Adopted be Useful Information for Local Jurisdictions? Many of the animal organizations and groups responding to this measure seem to indicate that receiving this information could possibly be useful for local animal control and local jurisdictions for purposes of licensing dogs. It should be recognized that this is considered to be a pilot program for several counties throughout the state and as such its purpose is to determine if receiving information about dogs which are sold or adopted would increase the ability for local jurisdictions to obtain an increase in licensing of dogs and also generate increased revenue. At least for the City of San Jose this appears to be the case, as well as for the City of Long Beach. Concerns, however, have been raised by the State Humane Association, SPCAs and others regarding the potential use and misuse of the information provided by these non-profit organizations to local animal control/shelters which includes the name and addresses of those who have for adopted animals and are considered to be potential donors to these organizations. The Sponsors indicate that the language in the bill and protections to this information provided would seem sufficient to prevent the use of this information by a local shelter to use in an effort to raise money or to use as a their own donor list. The example given by the State Humane Association is one where there were no legal protections provided such as in this measure. Also, Sponsors also raise the question of whether there is a direct connection to those who actually adopt dogs from these organizations and then become potential donors. 10.Policy Issue: Would Providing the Option to Obtain a "Puppy License" Potentially Increase the Licensing of Dogs in Local AB 1939 Page 17 Jurisdictions? This bill would permit cities and counties to offer puppy licenses for dogs under one year of age. If the local agency opts to offer puppy licensing, then that city or county would be required to follow the provisions of the bill, which contain the process for the licensing. For cities and counties that choose to offer a puppy license, the bill requires the local government to offer it for the same fee charged to owners of altered dogs. A puppy license would be temporary and become permanent only when the owners provide their local licensing agency with proof of proper rabies documentation (no later than five months of age). The problem pointed out by opponents of this measure relate more to the use of the differential fee now provided as an incentive for an owner to spay and neuter their dog, then to providing a puppy license. As a matter of fact, it appears that there are several other local jurisdictions that have actually adopted the concept of providing a puppy license with some success. The opponents, however, may have a point. It would seem that one of the major considerations for local jurisdictions is trying to provide whatever incentives are possible so that owners will have their dogs spayed or neutered. Opponents argue that by requiring the specified jurisdictions of this pilot program to offer the same fee for a puppy license that is offered for a spay or neutered dog ("one-half or less of the fee required for dog tag") that this would provide a disincentive for owners to get there dog spayed or neutered sooner rather than later (possibly after one year since that is how long the puppy license would be in effect). The Author may want to consider rather than tying the puppy license to the spay and neuter fee, that the local jurisdiction be given the ability to provide a "discounted rate" that would be maybe higher than the spayed or neutered fee but obviously lower than the normal dog tag fee. If an owner obtained a puppy license and then had their puppy spayed or neutered (within the one year), then they should get the lowest fee possible ; maybe a rebate on the puppy license fee once they had their puppy spayed or neutered or a discounted fee in the future. Would suggest the Author consider the following amendment: On page 5, strike lines 27 and 28, and insert: " be offered at a discounted rate. " 11.Policy Issue : Should Local Jurisdictions That Currently Have Puppy Licensing Programs or Reporting Requirements Be Exempted? The Author may want to consider grandfathering any of the local jurisdictions that have current programs that offer a puppy license AB 1939 Page 18 at a discounted fee or that may have specified reporting requirements for the sale or adoption of animals. As indicated by the City of Long Beach, they appear to have a successful program for the reporting of dogs which are sold or adopted. It has also been indicated that other local jurisdictions also have a puppy licensing programs in place. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: Concerned Dog Owners of California (Sponsor) Humane Society of the United States (Sponsor) California Animal Control Directors Association City of San Jose County of Sacramento Neutral : California Retailers Association Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council Opposition: Animal Council California Federation of Dog Clubs City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles Humane Society Silicon Valley Inland Valley Humane Society & SPCA PawPAC Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA San Diego Humane Society and SPCA Social Compassion in Legislation Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles SPCA for Monterey County State Humane Association of California Take Me Home Consultant:Bill Gage AB 1939 Page 19